Chavarria v. Green et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31 ),ORDER Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 24 ), ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims For Damages Against Defendants In Their Official Capacities From This Action, ORDER Requiring Defendants To File Answer Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2015. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CHAVARRIA, 12 13 14 15 1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31.) vs. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 24.) P. A. GREEN, et al., Defendants. 16 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES FROM THIS ACTION 17 18 19 ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 20 21 22 Anthony Chavarria (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 23 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 24 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On February 11, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 26 Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 31.) On March 13, 27 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 32.) On the same 28 date, Defendants also filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 33.) 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 3 including the parties’ objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. 7 8 11, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. 9 10 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities is GRANTED; 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from Plaintiff’s Complaint, based on Plaintiff’s abandonment of the claims, is DENIED; 13 14 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on July 28, 2014, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 11 12 The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from the Complaint, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, is DENIED; 15 16 6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DENIED; 17 7. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are 18 19 DISMISSED from this action; 8. 20 21 Defendants are required to file an Answer to the Complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order; and 9. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill March 19, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?